Delhi High Court
Ghanshyam Singh Rawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 2 May, 2017
$ ~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 2nd May, 2017
+ W.P(Crl.) 1295/2017 & Crl.M.A. 7206-07/2017
GHANSHYAM SINGH RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal & Ms.
Devyani Bhatt, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner describes himself as an elderly person of around
60 years age, employed as a watchman who has been harassed by his
son (fifth respondent). He states that the fifth respondent had
assaulted him on 3.6.2016 with the help of some of his associates
causing grievous injuries leading to FIR No. 413/2016 involving
offences punishable under Sections 325/506 IPC having been
registered in police station Sangam Vihar. It is also his allegation that
the said fifth respondent had forcibly taken over illegal possession of
his house on 12.6.2016 depriving him of its enjoyment. He presses for
various reliefs including writ in the nature of mandamus for direction
to the other respondents (Government of NCT of Delhi, the local
police and the District Magistrate) to take immediate action to restore
the possession of house to him, for direction to the said other
respondents to take immediate action including filing of charge-sheet
against the fifth respondent pursuant to FIR No. 413/2016, for
directions for inquiry to be held as to inaction on the part of the local
police to intervene when required, and to ensure that he is not forced
to sell his house to any person or at a price not determined by market
forces and further for adequate protection to be afforded at the time of
his visit to the said house in Sangam Vihar.
2. Status report has been filed by the learned additional standing
counsel for the State indicating that the investigation into FIR No.
413/2016 of police station Sangam Vihar having been completed,
charge-sheet has already been filed in the Court. This, the counsel for
the petitioner fairly conceded takes care of one of the prayers made in
the present petition.
3. As regards the other prayers, the prime grievance of the
petitioner being that his son (fifth respondent) had forcibly taken over
his house on 12.6.2016, and there was inaction on the part of the
police, on being asked counsel for the petitioner conceded that the
petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court to recover
the possession or of the forum under Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for necessary reliefs. The
averments made in the present petition do not make out a clear case of
any duress for sale of the residential property or for its disposal for
consideration less than the market value. Even otherwise if the
property is owned by the petitioner, it is his prerogative to sell it for
proper consideration to the person he chooses to transact with. The
right of the petitioner to visit the said house to look after it is
contingent upon he obtaining the necessary relief from the appropriate
forum in accordance with law. In such proceedings questions of fact
are bound to arise.
4. The petitioner, thus, must pursue the appropriate remedies
under the law, the present endeavour to bunch various grievances
together in a writ petition is clearly ill-advised and misconceived.
5. The petition is disposed of with above observations.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 02, 2017
nk
